PETITIONER:
BERHAMPUR UNIVERSITY & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DR. SAILABALA PADHI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Orissa High court, made on September 11, 1996 in O.J.C No. 8420 of 1993.
The admitted position is that the respondent had applied for selection to the post of professor, Environmental Science. The Selection committee on January 31, 1992 interviewed 13 candidates and found none to be qualified for appointment to the post of Professor, Environmental Science. The matter was referred to the subcommittee of the syndicate which by its proceedings dated June 22, 1992 opined that since the respondent had secured 44 out of 90 marks, she was be eligible for appointment and accordingly the matter was referred to the Chancellor under first proviso to section 21(2) of the Orissa Universities Act. 1989 (for short, the ’Act’) The Chancellor (the Governor of Orissa) directed re-advertisement as per opinion of the Expert committee by its proceedings dated January 15, 1993 Pursuant there to , another advertisement was issued on October 16, 1993 for recruitment to the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The qualification desired was Master’s degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. The respondent questioned the readvertisement of the post in question. The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed appointment of the respondent within four weeks from the date of the judgment. We are informed that pursuant to the contempt proceedings initiated by the respondent, appointment of the respondent came to be made.
It is contended by Mr. Misra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the Expert body is the competent committee to opine as to who is qualified and fit to be selected as professor in Environmental Science which requires Environmental Biology. The High Court cannot evaluate the relative requisite qualification and come to its own conclusion as to who would be fit for appointment. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, contends that the advertisement made does not relate to Environmental Biology ; it requires only master’s degree in Botany or Zoology or Environmental Biology. Since the respondent possessed master’s degree in Botany with requisite experience in the field, she, having secured 414 marks out of 90, is entitled to be considered for the post and the competent authority has no power to direct readvertisement of the post. The High court was, therefore, right in giving direction to appoint the respondent as Professor in Environmental Biology.
Having regard to the respective contentions the question that arises for consideration is whether the High court is justified in evaluating whether the respondent is qualified to be appointed as Professor. Section 21 reads as under:
"Appointment of officers, teachers
and other employees of the
University.
(1) All officers of the
University excepting the Registrar,
and the Comptroller of Finance
shall be appointed by the concerned
Vice Chancellor on the
recommendation of a selection
Committee consisting of the
Director, the Registrar, one member
to be selected by the Syndicate of
such University from amongst the
remaining members of the and two
experts appointed by the said vice
Chancellor wherever necessary.
(2) The teachers of a
University shall be appointed by
the syndicate of that University on
the recommendation of a selection
committee consisting of the
concerned vice Chancellor, the
Director, an expert nominated by
the Chancellor in the case of
appointment of Professor, and three
experts selected by the said vice
chancellor from out of the list of
six experts furnished by the said
Syndicate, which shall not include-
(i) any teacher of such
University or of any of its
constituent or affiliated colleges;
or
(ii) any person who has been
an examiner of such University in
the preceding or the relevant
year.
Provided that where the
committee fails to make any
specific recommendation or where
the syndicate differs from the
recommendation made by the
committee, the matter shall be
referred to the chancellor whose
decision thereon shall be final."
It is not in dispute that an Expert Committee has been constituted to select the candidates. The Expert Body consists of Vice-Chancellor, Berhampur University; Director, Higher Education, Orissa; Professor, Anna University, Quindy; professor, school of Environmental Science, Cochin University, Visakhapatnam. They have opined as under:
"13 candidates were called for
interview out of which 10
candidates appeared before the
selection committee and they were
interviewed. Taking into
consideration the candidates;
career, research publications,
teaching experience, confidential
character roll and performance at
the Viva-voce test, the selection
committee recommends no one for the
professor of Environmental
science."
The Vice-Chancellor, after taking into consideration the opinion expressed by the expert selection committee, has opined as under:
"(2) For the post of Professor of
Environmental Science, Dr. (Smt.)
Sailabala Padhy, who has secured
the highest marks in the interview,
does not have specialisation in
Environmental science either at the
P.G. stage or at the Doctoral
stage. However, she passed M.Sc in
Botany with specialisation in
Algology, securing a Ist class and
did Ph. D. in Algology. According
to the proposal submitted to the
UGC for the 8th plan, it was
indicated that the specialised
course (Ph.D/M. Phil) in
Environmental science shall be
started as an inter-disciplinary
course of Botany/Zoology
Departments. and for this purpose
the Professor and the Reader should
be from the Botany and Zoology
streams. the Sub-Committee,
therefore, suggested that the
syndicate might consider referring
her case to the Chancellor for a
decision under the Ist proviso of
section 21 (2) of the Orissa
Universities Act, 1989.
The recommendations of the
selection committee and the report
of the syndicate sub-committee
thereon, alongwith the above
observations of the syndicate be
referred to the Chancellor fr
consideration/decision."
The Syndicate in its Resolution stated as under:
"The Chancellor has further been
pleased to order that the Berhampur
University should re-advertise the
following vacancies as per the
required stipulations viz.,
qualification, experience and
specialisation etc."
(i) xx xxxxx xx
(ii) Professor of Environmental
Science.
xx xx."
In the light of these factual and legal situation, the question that arises for consideration is: whether the High Court would be justified in directing appointment of the respondent ? It is seen that, admittedly the respondent possessed Master’s degree in Botany with specialisation on the subject of Algology. Even among her articles published in various journals we come across, only two articles are on Environmental science but the experience referred therein relates to other subjects. Obvious, therefore, the Expert Body was to select a candidate for professor in Environmental science from amongst the candidates by adjudging whether a candidate is fit for appointment as professor. It is true that the Syndicate thought it justified that if respondent should have the qualification in one of the subjects namely; master’s degree in Botany, she would be preferred as a candidate since Environmental science shall be started as a candidate since Environmental science shall be started as interdisciplinary course of Botany/zoology and for that purpose the professor/Reader should be from the Botany and Zoology streams. Under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 , the order of the Chancellor shall be final and that therefore, the opinion expressed by the sub-committee of the Syndicate loses its sanctity. In the selection of Professor/reader or an y other teacher with specified qualifications, it is for the Expert Body to go into the merit and competency of the candidates for selection to the posts advertised for. No. doubt, in the advertisement, Environmental science was not specifically mentioned but it is not in dispute that Botany and Zoology being the integral part of Environmental science, necessarily the syndicate is enjoined to select candidates having the needed qualification and experience for the post of professor in Environmental science with master’s degree in Botany, Zoology or Environmental science. Thus, it could be seen that the authority was competent to evaluate the merit of the candidates and the Expert Body came to its own conclusion that the candidates securing 44 marks out of 90 should be passed for appointment to the post. The chancellor having had the advantage of the report of the Expert Body, obviously was not inclined to agree with the sub-committee of the Syndicate to appoint the respondent as Professor and accordingly, he has given direction in accordance with the rules for re-advertisement of the post of Professor in Environmental Science. The High court was, therefore, manifestly in error in directing the appointment of the respondent. The re-advertisement is accordingly in accordance with the rules. Ms. Indira Jaising has prayed that since the respondent has been appointed, she may be allowed to continue in the post of Professor, Environmental Science. Having noted that the Expert Body has not selected her, we cannot give any Positive direction for her continuance till the selection for the post of Professor in Environmental science is made.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.